> What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the > Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?

I think this exact point is often overlooked. I actually have a fairly trivial way to look at the whole thing.

I think that people want to(, and) donate to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't properly exist. So they donate to the people hosting the content of Wikipedia, and which cleverly entitled itself as the only entity capable to use the sitenotice for fundraising. As the sistenotice is probably the most visible place in the web (beside Google search page and Facebook blue bar), it was enough to get 90% (or maybe more) of donations from Wikipedia users. The WMF said that they deserved that right and took it. Every other WM entity was then to ask permission to them.

The problem, to me, is that we are not and they are not Wikipedia. So either everyone (asking community) has the right to use the sitenotice or neither of us.

> However, the gap between the legitimate demands of a donation-backed > funding process, and the resources available in a chapter with 0 employees, > is too big. Thus the hen-and-egg-problem that some have already pinpointed: > Getting the first employee demands the resources that only come with the > first employee. One result is the frustration of valuable volunteers, > another is the under-utilization of critical resources. >

In the FDC we recognize the obvious fact that small chapters have different resources and abilities than the large ones.

In my own view (not discussed with other FDC members), there are 3 categories of applicants: *

We should expect from the large organizations to meet the highest standards of budgeting, planning, and strategy. We should also be definitely more lenient and supporting for the small chapters, as well as recognize their limited resources. However, the FDC process is focused mainly on organizations, which want to professionalize and focus on structural growth. I think that bureaucratization should not be an aim in itself and that all applications, irrespective of the size of the organization, should have a clear mission-driven component, and basically aim at making some impact in line with our movement philosophy. And this is something that not all chapters agree on - it would seem that sometimes the administrative growth may be perceived as valuable on its own.

*

> The gap between WMF headquarters and national hubs has rapidly increased, > until now. WMF has a great number of employees in San Fransisco, and a very > low number of resources in other global hubs, let alone elsewhere in the > USA or in national language "markets" overseas. For any global > organisation, this imbalance is not optimal. The FCA initiative is a > reflex of this imbalance, but is presently to weak to cure it. Resources > pile up in the center, with a headquarter location probably given by its > address of registry. Are there really more wikipedians in California, than > in the rest of the world combined? >

Among seven FDC members there is no-one from California, and only one is American.

>> >> But you say "we" … We refers to WMHK I assume, but did you do this after a >> discussion with the Grants Programme, or did you decide this on your own? > > I work for the non-profit sector, and there is not way that any >> organisation I know could get away with something like that I am afraid. If >> you are given money for a reason, you cannot simply decide to take it as an >> advance on a possible next grant without agreement of the party that >> supplied you with the grant. I am sorry, but this is not Irony, this is >> governance… >> > > From my reply to THO (also on this thread): "We have replied multiple times > that we want the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants to be considered > in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie. the FDC proposal is the > reallocation request.) This is because it is logistically impractical for > us to return any funds to WMF before the end of Wikimania." >

Yes I read your reply, but you keep stating "we want", that is not that same as "together with the grant giver we agreed"… I cannot overstate the importance of the difference between the two…

(and again: this is not the only issue with the WMHK request that the FDC pointed out).

> Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : >> >> >> It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in >> some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. > > What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?

Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes.

> > Supporting >> chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of >> countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We >> need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the >> best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, >> publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best >> situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same >> way the WMF itself was created and has grown. > > I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role. > But we may agree to disagree on this.

I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others.

> > Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :)

True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely necessary. > > It would be a poor use >> of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant >> chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a >> recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste >> of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision >> by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite >> criticism and Sue's impending departure. > > I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones).

Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance)

> > In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy.

True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.

I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)...

> In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. > And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources".

I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not > > Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do.

I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are not isolated, but they are not the same either.

And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any funding is being in compliance.

> Hey Florence > > On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard <anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote: > >> Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : >>> >>> >>> It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in >>> some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. >> >> What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ? > > Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes. > >> >> Supporting >>> chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of >>> countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We >>> need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the >>> best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, >>> publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best >>> situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same >>> way the WMF itself was created and has grown. >> >> I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role. >> But we may agree to disagree on this. > > I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others. > >> >> Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :) > > True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely necessary. >> >> It would be a poor use >>> of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant >>> chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a >>> recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste >>> of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision >>> by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite >>> criticism and Sue's impending departure. >> >> I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones). > > Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance) > >> >> In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy. > > True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk. > >> >> We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well. > > I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)... > >> In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. >> And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources". > > I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not >> >> Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do. > > I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are not isolated, but they are not the same either. > > And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any funding is being in compliance. > > Jan-Bart > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l [at] lists > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

> > > Yes I read your reply, but you keep stating "we want", that is not that > same as "together with the grant giver we agreed"… I cannot overstate the > importance of the difference between the two… > > People don't instantly agree on everything. There is always something the WMF grants team can disagree with anyone, if they so choose to. I'm referring to the sequence of events here (grant report accepted, then eligibility announced, then suddenly disqualification happened because the settlement of remaining funds hasn't been agreed to), not the nature. We all agree that the leftover grant funds eventually need to be settled by an agreement between WMF and WMHK. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l [at] lists Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

2013/4/30 Charles Andres <charles.andres.wmch [at] gmail>: > In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could use in parallel if FDC assessment. > > But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it seems that chapters peer review should be consider by chapter willing to apply to the FDC as a preliminary step. > > I think that a friendly discussion between peers about the reasons to apply to the FDC would help everybody to save time and facilitate the choice of the appropriate grant process :-)

Hi Charles! That would be really helpful.

I'd also like to remind that the process for next year's proposals includes a Letter of Intent as first step, which will allow the both the FDC and the applicants to work on the proposals four months in advance to the presentation deadline and hopefully helping to improve the applications and/or help to decide which should be the choice of grant process. I hope some concerns expressed in this thread will be addressed with this change in the process. See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125199.htmlfor more details.

> Hey Florence > > On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard <anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote: > > > Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : > >> > >> > >> It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in > >> some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. > > > > What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the > Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ? > > Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me > and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the > FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed > amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those > of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are > divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the > community review process as a important addition) ensures much more > transparent processes. > > > > > Supporting > >> chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of > >> countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We > >> need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the > >> best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, > >> publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best > >> situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same > >> way the WMF itself was created and has grown. > > > > I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement > efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision > made some months ago to deflate WMF role. > > But we may agree to disagree on this. > > I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to > help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better > alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters > and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan > this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for > all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for > others. > > > > > Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current > stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a > rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison > to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may > have a slightly more ideal view of the past :) > > True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they > should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are > both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of > luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it > impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely > necessary. > > > > It would be a poor use > >> of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant > >> chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a > >> recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste > >> of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision > >> by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite > >> criticism and Sue's impending departure. > > > > I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions > (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, > not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not > become WMF ones). > > Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope > to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final > say in these matters as a matter of governance) > > > > > In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What > I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated > volunteers to stay healthy. > > True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into > positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk. > > > > > We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk > about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well. > > I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in > Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise > affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes > different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and > keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big > bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn > out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those > problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk > of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically > and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)... > > > In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania > plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good > outcome. For no-one. > > And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing > Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy > strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, > mis-management and waste of donor resources". > > I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not > > > > Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more > respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do > not. I do. > > I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but > I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the > other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are > not isolated, but they are not the same either. > > And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do > think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and > reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place > for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply > to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any > funding is being in compliance. >

Last time I've checked, GAC explicitly disallow proposals for full-time permanent staffing and administrative costs, stating that FDC is the only place we can get funding for that.

Having project funding alone wouldn't help - it is precisely because the grants team disallows the use of project grants for administrative purposes that WMHK ended up in its current awkward situation. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l [at] lists Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

> In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania > plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good > outcome. For no-one. > And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing > Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, > fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, > mis-management and waste of donor resources". > > Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more > respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we > do not. I do. > > And I think that even though you are free to think funding this > chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human > perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement. > > Florence > >

My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like "not needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization.

I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could use a new thread!

Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

> On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote: > >> Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : >> > > In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania >> plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good >> outcome. For no-one. >> And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing >> Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, >> fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, >> mis-management and waste of donor resources". >> >> Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more >> respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we >> do not. I do. >> >> And I think that even though you are free to think funding this >> chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human >> perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement. >> >> Florence >> >> >> > My personal experience after being an active program committee member on > the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I > believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed > to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated > by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, > a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in > 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking > whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone > duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like "not > needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. > I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I > can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania > organization. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l [at] lists Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

On 30/04/2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > My personal experience after being an active program committee member > on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there > (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, > we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was > only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good > words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind > of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in > 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do > this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki > administrator flag saying smth like "not needed anymore", and nobody > cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided > afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my > community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization.

I would just like to point out that there's no Program Committee for 2014 as the jury decision on host haven't even been made yet, and for 2013 there were an open invitation for people to volunteer to serve on the Programmes Commitee and Scholarship Committee - <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-October/004375.html>. Yes, as a movement in general we need to get better at showing apperication for others hard work, but let's not generalise.

Regards,

KTC

-- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by.

On 30.04.2013 13:23, Katie Chan wrote: > On 30/04/2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: >> My personal experience after being an active program committee member >> on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there >> (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, >> we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was >> only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good >> words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind >> of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in >> 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do >> this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki >> administrator flag saying smth like "not needed anymore", and nobody >> cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided >> afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my >> community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization. > > I would just like to point out that there's no Program Committee for > 2014 as the jury decision on host haven't even been made yet, and for > 2013 there were an open invitation for people to volunteer to serve on > the Programmes Commitee and Scholarship Committee - > <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-October/004375.html>. > Yes, as a movement in general we need to get better at showing > apperication for others hard work, but let's not generalise. > > Regards, > > KTC

As I said, this is my personal experience, and not a generalization. I unsubscribed from wikimania-l I believe in 2010, and now I will not do it again even if personally approached. I am fine with doing community service, but I am not really fine with being insulted for doing community service because people do not care to figure out who is doing what and insult the first person who approaches them.

I think Jan-Bart did point out an interesting point As I heard in Milan Long time staffing, must go trough FDC And we exactly know our weakness on transparency and management (I already tried hard to push my rest of team when I was on the chapter board But what do you expect if they have day time or/& studies?)

And going trough these year of struggle for survival We are already very clear to improve the situation we need permanent staff to stabilize the structure, to free up volunteer to work out something more "meaningful".

As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies.

But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers.

Also we understand the local environment can be how harsh to charity run by young people like us WMF is rather easy way to get funding, so I can understand why they have such strong feeling It is frankly a huge slam on the local communities faith on that WMF can be helpful all the time.

we have plans and right connections, just need people to deal with the stuff in working hours and of course improve the area they accuse us That's it

(also one note about the accusation of mismanagement previous fund

we did have apply grant via projects, we finished the report, and we told them we have money left, nobody had tell us what to do clearly AND WMF STAFF CONTACTS JUST CHANGE ALL THE TIME

Actually I do find this new grant system really disgusting I know there are always some good & helpful staff and people around Frankly I dun think the FdC related person are & will

And now they force me to think of other harder local alternative (which again a hell lot volunteer time) Sorry frankly I dun have confidence on appeal or ombudsman after go through all these frankly

On the other hands we need more (fxxxing) paperworks for appeal or ombudsman, which the team is super tired with, I just ponder why the things go so inhumane.

Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next

And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories.

Probably a smoother transition would be much more appropiate. A part-time or temporary employee that can take care of the belated reports and paperwork that you, as volunteers, can't do and probably establish some basis for a future growth. WM-AR, WM-RS and WM-IL have professionalized in the latest years (correct me if there is any other chapter too), which are medium-sized chapters, probably similar to HK.You should take a look at their/our experience and that can be helpful to imagine what you can do.

*Osmar Valdebenito G.* Director Ejecutivo A. C. Wikimedia Argentina

2013/4/30 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan <jerry.tschan.yu [at] gmail>

> I think Jan-Bart did point out an interesting point > As I heard in Milan > Long time staffing, must go trough FDC > And we exactly know our weakness on transparency and management > (I already tried hard to push my rest of team when I was on the chapter > board > But what do you expect if they have day time or/& studies?) > > And going trough these year of struggle for survival > We are already very clear to improve the situation we need permanent staff > to stabilize the structure, to free up volunteer to work out something more > "meaningful". > > As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck > we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should > never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As > without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had > to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies. > > But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) > irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the > worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers. > > Also we understand the local environment can be how harsh to charity run by > young people like us > WMF is rather easy way to get funding, so I can understand why they have > such strong feeling > It is frankly a huge slam on the local communities faith on that WMF can be > helpful all the time. > > we have plans and right connections, just need people to deal with the > stuff in working hours > and of course improve the area they accuse us > That's it > > (also one note about the accusation of mismanagement previous fund > > we did have apply grant via projects, we finished the report, and we told > them we have money left, nobody had tell us what to do clearly > AND WMF STAFF CONTACTS JUST CHANGE ALL THE TIME > > > Actually I do find this new grant system really disgusting > I know there are always some good & helpful staff and people around > Frankly I dun think the FdC related person are & will > > And now they force me to think of other harder local alternative (which > again a hell lot volunteer time) > Sorry frankly I dun have confidence on appeal or ombudsman after go through > all these frankly > > On the other hands we need more (fxxxing) paperworks for appeal or > ombudsman, which the team is super tired with, I just ponder why the things > go so inhumane. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 29 Apr, 2013, at 2:37, "Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)" < > jerry.tschan.yu [at] gmail> wrote: > > Hi all > > I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this. > > Normally I would say please don't go, > but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already > and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next > > And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the > whole Wikimania Local Team > I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our > volunteer power > after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board > and knew most of the stories. > > -- > Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry > http://plasticnews.wf/> http://about.me/jeromyu> UID: Jeromyu > (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk & most sites) > > Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 > Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l [at] lists > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l [at] lists Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

> As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck > we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should > never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As > without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had > to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies. >

I hope it is clear that the FDC decision DOES NOT suggest that you should never professionalize at all, or hire staff, etc. This decision is related only to your submitted project (its content, the evaluated impact, as well as volume - you applied for over 200,000 USD to start with; as well as the estimated capacity to deal with the project's scale, responsibilities, etc.).

> But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) > irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the > worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers. >

I'm really very sorry to hear that and I assure you that it has never been our intention to undermine the spirit of volunteers. On the contrary, the volunteer work is something you shine in, and Wikimania organization is something everybody on the FDC has been really impressed with. However, I also hope you realize that the project evaluation has to be done basing on its own merits, and it did not include Wikimania at all (funded separately).

Is there any (un)official policy/strong advice/anything against direct hiring from WMF/FDC/whatever grants?

Balazs

2013/4/30 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj [at] alk>

> hi Jeromy-Yu, > > thank you for sharing this personal note. > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan < > jerry.tschan.yu [at] gmail> wrote: > > > As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is > bottleneck > > we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should > > never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As > > without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone > had > > to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies. > > > > I hope it is clear that the FDC decision DOES NOT suggest that you should > never professionalize at all, or hire staff, etc. This decision is related > only to your submitted project (its content, the evaluated impact, as well > as volume - you applied for over 200,000 USD to start with; as well as the > estimated capacity to deal with the project's scale, responsibilities, > etc.). > > I also encourage you to go through the comments from the deliberation: > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2#Comments_from_the_deliberation> > > > But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) > > irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, > the > > worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers. > > > > I'm really very sorry to hear that and I assure you that it has never been > our intention to undermine the spirit of volunteers. On the contrary, the > volunteer work is something you shine in, and Wikimania organization is > something everybody on the FDC has been really impressed with. However, I > also hope you realize that the project evaluation has to be done basing on > its own merits, and it did not include Wikimania at all (funded > separately). > > best, > > dariusz ("pundit") > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l [at] lists > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l [at] lists Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Le 4/30/13 12:52 PM, Richard Symonds a écrit : > I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could > use a new thread!

Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process, but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for his effort and involvement.

And boy... is that sad :(

Flo

> > Richard Symonds > Wikimedia UK > 0207 065 0992 > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). > > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control > over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* > > > On 30 April 2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod [at] mccme> wrote: > >> On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote: >> >>> Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : >>> >> >> In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania >>> plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good >>> outcome. For no-one. >>> And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing >>> Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, >>> fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, >>> mis-management and waste of donor resources". >>> >>> Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more >>> respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we >>> do not. I do. >>> >>> And I think that even though you are free to think funding this >>> chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human >>> perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement. >>> >>> Florence >>> >>> >>> >> My personal experience after being an active program committee member on >> the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I >> believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed >> to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated >> by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, >> a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in >> 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking >> whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone >> duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like "not >> needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. >> I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I >> can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania >> organization. >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l [at] lists > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>

Le 4/30/13 11:22 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede a écrit : > Hey Florence > > On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard <anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote: > >> Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : >>> >>> >>> It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in >>> some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. >> >> What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ? > > Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes.

No worry there. I know the board is largely (or unanimously ?) supporting the concept of FDC. My question was definitly to Nathan...

>> >> Supporting >>> chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of >>> countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We >>> need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the >>> best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, >>> publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best >>> situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same >>> way the WMF itself was created and has grown. >> >> I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role. >> But we may agree to disagree on this. > > I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others. > >> >> Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :) > > True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely necessary.

True. But I would argue that's in good part because we had so little that things were operated in a "bad" way. And it is not because WMF was so tight on money for its first 3-4 years of operations that we should somehow make it so that all organizations should also go through such pains.

>> It would be a poor use >>> of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant >>> chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a >>> recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste >>> of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision >>> by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite >>> criticism and Sue's impending departure. >> >> I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones). > > Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance) > >> >> In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy. > > True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.

Yup :) Which is why I stepped down at last year elections on WM FR board. I am really glad I did it. I knew this year was going to be really tough. And it is not deceiving me.... annus horribilis :(

> >> >> We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well. > > I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)...

I do not think WMF bureaucracy is to blame in this case.

>> In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. >> And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources". > > I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not >> >> Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do. > > I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are not isolated, but they are not the same either. > > And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any funding is being in compliance.

Yeah, but the rules of the GAC probably need to be refreshed so that it can cover administrative costs which would not be directly related to a specific project but would be more general support to an organization (this organization would still need to show decent programming of course). Admin stuff is probably what is right now toughest for most organizations.

I was thinking of the numerous (quite successful) associations in France, which are simply made of entrepreneurs wishing to do things together (from networking, to training, to visits, conferences etc.). Most of those associations have only one staff member, a long-term hired secretary who takes care of secretarial work. The rest of the association activity is 100% taken care of by the volunteer entrepreneurs (usually through an extended board of volunteer members). In many cases, the secretary is paid with sponsorship and membership fees. Oftenly, the city or the region offers a free-of-charge office corner in a public building. With only one full time or 50% time secretary knowing all details of the association, the members of these associations do miracles because they are relieved of the burden of doing paperworks, renting spaces, giving phone calls, sending general assemblies invitation, sending receipt, cashing checks and doing doodles to organize meetings. In most cases where I have seen this secretary position missing, the association is suffering because members get stuck in simple paperwork stuff. That's sad. Just a stable position of the sort can change things dramatically and balance the turnover of members.

But this recipe which I think is generally a good practice amongst such associations is not possible for our organizations through the GAC system and pushes them toward the FDC at a much too early stage of development.

> Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process, > but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for his > effort and involvement. > > And boy... is that sad :( > > Flo >

Florence Devouard wrote: >I was thinking of the numerous (quite successful) associations in >France, which are simply made of entrepreneurs wishing to do things >together (from networking, to training, to visits, conferences etc.). >Most of those associations have only one staff member, a long-term hired >secretary who takes care of secretarial work. The rest of the >association activity is 100% taken care of by the volunteer >entrepreneurs (usually through an extended board of volunteer members).

Yes, this kind of association is also somewhat common in the United States as well. I agree that it might serve as a very good model for a healthy number of Wikimedia chapters.

>In many cases, the secretary is paid with sponsorship and membership >fees.

The Wikimedia Foundation seems to be in a good place to ensure that this need is met for chapters in need of a full-time staff person. A little seed money. What needs to happen in order to ensure requests like this are met if membership fees and sponsorships aren't sufficient?

Thank you those of you who replied to me either on this thread or privately. I've already replied to them off-list where appropriate.

I apologise that my intentionally harsh words in the original mail and subsequent public replies may have been construed as bad-faith personal attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I recognise that my anecdotal use of the words "foul play" may have hurt people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't comment any more on this matter.

Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive measures for local volunteers.

> Dear trusty Wikimedians, > > The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to > assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly > endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an > overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection > of our FDC proposal. > > At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my > resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as > Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out > my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team. > > My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced > me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time, and > of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole. > > My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism > about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative > with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that > it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement. > > My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting > fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional staff > to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running Wikimedia > chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love > Wikimedia. > > My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is > totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of staff > manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion. > > WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by > WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been vocal > about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any > better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our request > for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a > payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got > Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do with > the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped to > professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request > was rejected. > > And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we > aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't > have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and > ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be > trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that. > > My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony > and the frustration? > > Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely > because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a > movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities, > particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much more > traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia > enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with > charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement entity > as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging > toddlers by their full marathon times. > > Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary > idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a > chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days > and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree > studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let > WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters professionalise. > > I was wrong. > > With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about > where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in > environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better spent > helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration > work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again. > > But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my > fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement heading. > I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for > volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort. > > I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable efforts > will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about "overheads" and > staffing. > http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html> > With Wiki-Love, > Deryck > > PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send > this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't > subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I want > to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of > proportion. Or perhaps I do want this to be blown out of proportion so that > my voice will actually be heard. Thanks for reading. > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l [at] lists Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

> Hello everyone again. > > Thank you those of you who replied to me either on this thread or > privately. I've already replied to them off-list where appropriate. > > I apologise that my intentionally harsh words in the original mail and > subsequent public replies may have been construed as bad-faith personal > attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I > recognise that my anecdotal use of the words "foul play" may have hurt > people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already > filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm > determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't > comment any more on this matter. > > Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out > of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive > measures for local volunteers. > > Deryck > > On 28 April 2013 23:52, Deryck Chan <deryckchan [at] wikimedia> wrote: > > > Dear trusty Wikimedians, > > > > The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to > > assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly > > endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received > an > > overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection > > of our FDC proposal. > > > > At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my > > resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as > > Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out > > my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team. > > > > My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced > > me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time, > and > > of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole. > > > > My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism > > about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative > > with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that > > it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement. > > > > My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting > > fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional > staff > > to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running > Wikimedia > > chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love > > Wikimedia. > > > > My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is > > totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of > staff > > manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion. > > > > WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by > > WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been > vocal > > about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any > > better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our > request > > for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a > > payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got > > Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do > with > > the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped > to > > professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request > > was rejected. > > > > And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we > > aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't > > have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and > > ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be > > trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that. > > > > My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony > > and the frustration? > > > > Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely > > because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a > > movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities, > > particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much > more > > traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia > > enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with > > charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement > entity > > as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging > > toddlers by their full marathon times. > > > > Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary > > idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a > > chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days > > and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree > > studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let > > WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters > professionalise. > > > > I was wrong. > > > > With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about > > where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in > > environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better > spent > > helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration > > work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again. > > > > But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my > > fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement > heading. > > I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for > > volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort. > > > > I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable > efforts > > will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about "overheads" and > > staffing. > > > http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html> > > > With Wiki-Love, > > Deryck > > > > PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send > > this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't > > subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I > want > > to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of > > proportion. Or perhaps I do want this to be blown out of proportion so > that > > my voice will actually be heard. Thanks for reading. > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l [at] lists > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>

many thanks for your letter. It is a relief to know that you're not assuming bad faith. I really hope that your enthusiasm for Wikimedia will not die out completely.

One remark: I think that you may need to file a complaint not in your personal capacity, but representing the chapter (it would be logical if only the organizations, which are dissatisfied with the results related to them, could complain). The deadline is also quite short, 7 days from the day the recommendations were published.

> Hello everyone again. > > Thank you those of you who replied to me either on this thread or > privately. I've already replied to them off-list where appropriate. > > I apologise that my intentionally harsh words in the original mail and > subsequent public replies may have been construed as bad-faith personal > attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I > recognise that my anecdotal use of the words "foul play" may have hurt > people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already > filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm > determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't > comment any more on this matter. > > Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out > of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive > measures for local volunteers. > > Deryck > > On 28 April 2013 23:52, Deryck Chan <deryckchan [at] wikimedia> wrote: > > > Dear trusty Wikimedians, > > > > The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to > > assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly > > endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received > an > > overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection > > of our FDC proposal. > > > > At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my > > resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as > > Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out > > my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team. > > > > My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced > > me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time, > and > > of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole. > > > > My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism > > about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative > > with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that > > it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement. > > > > My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting > > fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional > staff > > to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running > Wikimedia > > chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love > > Wikimedia. > > > > My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is > > totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of > staff > > manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion. > > > > WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by > > WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been > vocal > > about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any > > better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our > request > > for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a > > payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got > > Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do > with > > the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped > to > > professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request > > was rejected. > > > > And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we > > aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't > > have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and > > ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be > > trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that. > > > > My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony > > and the frustration? > > > > Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely > > because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a > > movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities, > > particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much > more > > traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia > > enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with > > charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement > entity > > as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging > > toddlers by their full marathon times. > > > > Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary > > idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a > > chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days > > and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree > > studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let > > WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters > professionalise. > > > > I was wrong. > > > > With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about > > where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in > > environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better > spent > > helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration > > work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again. > > > > But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my > > fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement > heading. > > I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for > > volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort. > > > > I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable > efforts > > will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about "overheads" and > > staffing. > > > http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html> > > > With Wiki-Love, > > Deryck > > > > PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send > > this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't > > subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I > want > > to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of > > proportion. Or perhaps I do want this to be blown out of proportion so > that > > my voice will actually be heard. Thanks for reading. > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l [at] lists > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>